If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The NT goons at work use Citrix virtualized desktops that provide remote GUI desktops to datacenters that are housed well over 1/3 of the world away. That is, quite literally, we have WAN connections on entirely different continents that provide Windows desktops remotely. I couldn't even dream of doing that with X11. It's a total friggen nightmare in comparison.

Well, I just would like to add some information about a solution to have the same functionnality than citrix or windows rdp on Linux.
There is a projet called "x2go" which does exactly the same as citrix but on Linux. It uses NX proxy for display redirection and it works very well...
So YES, there is a Linux solution and it's not a nighmare to install or use, and it's FREE goddamit...so try it, you will be surprised of the quality and the speed...

Well, I just would like to add some information about a solution to have the same functionnality than citrix or windows rdp on Linux.
There is a projet called "x2go" which does exactly the same as citrix but on Linux. It uses NX proxy for display redirection and it works very well...
So YES, there is a Linux solution and it's not a nighmare to install or use, and it's FREE goddamit...so try it, you will be surprised of the quality and the speed...

And it uses almost none of the famed 'network transparency' features of X instead replicating essentially what Wayland is going to do for remote clients.

Network transparency is a neat feature, but what does it actually provide to the user that something like RDP or VNC doesn't? You can call those gross hacks if you want, but the bottom line is that all the actual X developers have said that it's a poor architecture and that RDP is far superior. I trust that they know what they are talking about far more than some random posters on Phoronix, unless you can actually articulate what it is that we lose.

Network transparency lets me run some arbitrary application on a remote system, and have the display on my current desktop. Typically stuff like VNC and RDP don't export one application window, they export an entire desktop. So you're stuck with a slightly schizoid desktop-here vs desktop-there situation. You can work around it, but it's kind of ugly. I tend to use x11vnc to grab my existing work session from home, and that can be especially bad when the work display is better than my home display. You end up either scrolling a viewport or scaling, neither of which is very good. Also, at work I really only want to run one desktop environment - I don't want to start all of that crap for every system I use, nor do I want to wade through multiple desktop environments.

Practically all of us use this every blasted day at work - getting resource from elsewhere. Plus text-only doesn't hack it, because eventually some sort of graphical display becomes necessary for what we do here. (VLSI CAD) In fact, the "strategic direction," which I personally disagree with, is to put laptops on everyone's desk with a proprietary Windows-based X solution, and you get your engineering Linux access "from the local cloud." For my own purposes, I found that the laptop I was able to spec for the job was so beefy that I got some extra DRAM and just run Linux on it. I go remote for stuff that's beyond what the laptop can handle, or when there are back-level OS requirements that simply won't run on my laptop. (It's also several revs ahead of the "standard platform.")

This is the working world. Programming is part of my job, but it all has to do with delivering silicon, not with GUI programs. I need to grab resources where I can grab them, and there are often unique requirements for different tasks, so you grab this resource for this task and that resource for that task. I'm paid to get my job done, not to indulge in platform purity or stuff like that. I understand that X11 is old and crufty, and in fact I was an early adopter of xcb, including sending error reports along to software vendors when the locking problems became apparent. I don't care if it's X11, xcb, X12, or Wayland with something on top. I need some form of network transparency, and I need it to run arbitrary applications, not just those designed for it.

I have work to do! Which is what really annoys me when people can't look past the end of their own noses and use logic like, "I don't need network transparency, so it's not necessary at all!" or "That's so quaint!"

Network transparency lets me run some arbitrary application on a remote system, and have the display on my current desktop. Typically stuff like VNC and RDP don't export one application window, they export an entire desktop.

Network transparency lets me run some arbitrary application on a remote system, and have the display on my current desktop. Typically stuff like VNC and RDP don't export one application window, they export an entire desktop...

... I understand that X11 is old and crufty, and in fact I was an early adopter of xcb, including sending error reports along to software vendors when the locking problems became apparent. I don't care if it's X11, xcb, X12, or Wayland with something on top. I need some form of network transparency, and I need it to run arbitrary applications, not just those designed for it.

I have work to do! Which is what really annoys me when people can't look past the end of their own noses and use logic like, "I don't need network transparency, so it's not necessary at all!" or "That's so quaint!"

I'm very glad you wrote the middle paragraph (even though I cut some away above), or even you whole post since it was very to-the-point and well written, since you sum it up very well: As long as it works, it can do wonders for me! The important part is that it works for its users, no matter if it's X11, X12 or Wayland. And the things (just like other has mentioned) doesn't have to exclude each other; like it's summed up on the Wayland FAQ: http://wayland.freedesktop.org/faq.html#heading_toc_j_7

What about the overhead of running X on wayland?
If you're running a fullscreen X server, which pushes it's root window buffer to Wayland there is little overhead. If the X server root window is transformed (ie scaled down or spinning on the side of a cube) the Wayland compositor will have to do an extra copy to get the pixels on screen. But once the animation finishes and the X server buffer fills the entire screen, the Wayland compositor can change the video scanout to source from the X server buffer and retreat into the background. The X server uses the standard X.org DDX drivers, renders to directly to its pixmaps and its root window, and the path from X to hardware is exactly as a native X.org server."

X might work great for some people, and it will certainly stick around for 15 more years, and it will be possible (and without overhead) to run X inside Wayland, and in that way keep the network transparency.

Is Wayland network transparent / does it support remote rendering?
No, that is outside the scope of Wayland. To support remote rendering you need to define a rendering API, which is something I've been very careful to avoid doing. The reason Wayland is so simple and feasible at all is that I'm sidestepping this big task and pushing it to the clients. It's an interesting challenge, a very big task and it's hard to get right, but essentially orthogonal to what Wayland tries to acheive.

This doesn't mean that remote rendering won't be possible with Wayland, it just means that you will have to put a remote rendering server on top of Wayland. One such server could be the X.org server, but other options include an RDP server, a VNC server or somebody could even invent their own new remote rendering model. Which is a feature when you think about it; layering X.org on top of Wayland has very little overhead, but the other types of remote rendering servers no longer requires X.org, and experimenting with new protocols is easier.

It is also possible to put a remoting protocol into a wayland compositor, either a standalone remoting compositor or as a part of a full desktop compositor. This will let us forward native Wayland applications. The standalone compositor could let you log into a server and run an application back on your desktop. Building the fowarding into the desktop compositor, could let you export or share a window on the fly with a remote wayland compositor, for example a friends desktop.

But one thing that is sure, is that even though X works well for some people in specific situations (like your case) Wayland will work a lot better for most people, on 3D accelerated systems/laptops with single/multi monitors, in every aspect. It will be faster, more stable (eventually), easier to maintain and easier to program against. It's going to be rockin' =)

That's cool and all, but everytime something dares to 'advance', there are always people saying "Isn't what we have good enough?".

What you're basicaly saying is "I'm 62, therefore I'm wise. I made apps all my life, therefore I'm right. You have no right to defend a proposal, because you must do it yourself."

Excuse me, but with that kind of thinking we'd all still be using Pentium 4's, running Windows 2000 and Office 2003, browsing HTMLv2 for eternity with Firefox 1.0 on Flash enabled YouTube 480p, ordering VHS video's.

You are talking about the basic politics of change. Unfortunately the reality of those politics differ from the presentation. Anytime you change something you have people opposed to it and people for it. There usually involves a beneficiary of the change and loser of the change. Everything is zero sum. If change were presented completely honestly then it would occur naturally or not. Some would change others would not. Or some would resist others would insist.
How it really happens. Present to everyone that this change is good for you and you benefit and we are just doing it because we love you so much and we really want to give you these great divine gifts. Make sure all the reasons behind it make sense to the person but that they are too stupid to figure out what's really going on. Even attempt to make the person clamor for the change. Then make the change and watch people puzzle over just what went wrong.

Allowing complete freedom in the decision making process is not going to happen because then you don't have people serving you when you want them to. Linux occaisonally does this just kick the sheep in the rear. It sets up dozens of projects all heading in the same way all trying to coexist with each other just to make you annoyed with that option. IE pulse, jack, alsa, ad infinitum. This puts the most manipulative people in the lead for manufacturing consent. Wayland will fracture the linux community and side developement and extra work to co-exist with it. X has to respond to this.

As I said in another post months back. Linux is interested in controlling the gpu with the kernel just like it's a cpu. This involves tasking and managing it and scheduling it. Microsoft has been attempting to do this for the last 6 frikkin or how many years. Starting with windows vista which turned out to be resource eating pig that was about as responsive as the day planner of a dead person at a funeral. Slight improvements with windows 7.
Once the GEM scheduler comes online or whatever they call the gpu scheduler linux will turn into windows vista and start being slow and completely unable to handle any real time or semi real time events because the gpu will be there taking over the system as a bus master all the time and hanging onto it long enough to actually get anything done. Linux will go from responding in 3 to 10microseconds to a 100 or more microseconds and old or slow hardware will start struggling to even decode a video even though it's offloaded to the gpu. What they don't tell you is once you offload to the gpu you're system is dirtnapped anyway. Because the gpu is running the show for your entire ram and interrupt system for the most part because it's a busmaster. GPU manufacturers want this because if they abuse the hell out of their employees they can't run off and do it the way they want to do it, because they'll need to drag a software developement team the size of texas with them.

So you're basically looking at all the real and imagined fears and hopes and how they polictically impact the change system above.
Thank you for tuning into this episode of The More You Know.

You are talking about the basic politics of change. Unfortunately the reality of those politics differ from the presentation. Anytime you change something you have people opposed to it and people for it. There usually involves a beneficiary of the change and loser of the change. Everything is zero sum.

This is, of course, wrong: change is not a zero sum game.

When we changed from perforated cards to magnetic storage, some people lost their jobs. However, computers became faster and far more accessible - a net win.

The same happened when we changed from terminals to graphical user interfaces. People still object to this, but GUIs made computers accessible to ordinary (non-geek) people - a net win.

In fact, take about any large technological advancement, from the industrial revolution to space flight and from cars to e-ink, and you'll find people in opposition - even though the result is a huge net win in the end. The same pattern holds in the software microcosme (and, yes, GPU scheduling is a net win and an important advancement, for the exact same reasons why we moved from cooperative multitasking in Win3/MacOS to preemptive scheduling in Win95/MacOSX/Linux).

And you know what the common thread between all these huge advancements is? They happened and took the world by storm despite the opposition and the predictions of doom. Noone sat to present the change "honestly". They didn't say: "cars are so and so but horses are this and that, so pick which you prefer". They just built the stuff and changed the world, even though they weren't aware of the true impact at first.

When we changed from perforated cards to magnetic storage, some people lost their jobs. However, computers became faster and far more accessible - a net win.

The same happened when we changed from terminals to graphical user interfaces. People still object to this, but GUIs made computers accessible to ordinary (non-geek) people - a net win.

In fact, take about any large technological advancement, from the industrial revolution to space flight and from cars to e-ink, and you'll find people in opposition - even though the result is a huge net win in the end. The same pattern holds in the software microcosme (and, yes, GPU scheduling is a net win and an important advancement, for the exact same reasons why we moved from cooperative multitasking in Win3/MacOS to preemptive scheduling in Win95/MacOSX/Linux).

And you know what the common thread between all these huge advancements is? They happened and took the world by storm despite the opposition and the predictions of doom. Noone sat to present the change "honestly". They didn't say: "cars are so and so but horses are this and that, so pick which you prefer". They just built the stuff and changed the world, even though they weren't aware of the true impact at first.

Ok. You are not allowed to use the mathematics equal sign. Because change is not zero sum. You don't believe it is and anything you express in zero sum mathematics is a lie.
Of course change is zero sum. The mere fact that you're memeing something a sociopath told you about change indicates that they want to play a game with you and make sure you don't understand the rules.

The industrial revolution is not for the benefit of the people. Since the industrial revolution governments have bragged about how there's never been a successful overthrow of the government since the invention of the machine gun. If things aren't zero sum then where is your gun the size of a volkswagen and your 50,000 horsepower turbine engine to lift it into the air. The industrial revolution was cementing the machinery for violent control of the population. The IT revolution is cementing the machinery for mental control of the population.
The mere fact that you say change is not zero sum indicates that you are under sociopathic control. You're influencable and suggestible.
Authority won't be undermined. It doesn't matter if it's the church killing you for saying the bibles wrong or the government killing you for not following it's rules. Earth is about ganging up. It's not a school to learn valuable lessons. It's a gang training ground.

I'm only lying for your benefit to make this change easier. You'll see it's much better after the change. After the change It's not much better. The people who run this game are sociopaths. They lie they steal they cheat they make rules that they don't follow and they force and coerce and manipulate. They aren't against stealing. They simply want a monopoly on it. They aren't against advancing humanity they simply want the credit for it. They teach rediculous concepts. Like If I were to give you a million dollars and then try to make you believe that I gave you something that would be a lie. Until someone gives you something for those dollars I haven't done anything and didn't do anything. Any gratitude or thankfulness or anything at all directed towards me is a lie. I've simply given you permission to have your needs or in this largesse donation your trivial wants met by other servants who collect those debt tickets.

People get this as various forms of self. Be it the individual self or the family self or the workplace self. Those are all various sizes and structures of gangs you involved with to co-create with the world. The largest gang is government. And they conspire against you. You know they conspire against you conspiring is real because when the government uses the legal system. Most complains have a phrase. Conspiring to .... blah blah blah.

Any change is supposed to involve "sacrifice". Like during the 60's the blacks had to fight for rights that they should have gotten anyway. They had to expend enormous amounts of resources in order to affect a change that should have been free.

But people weren't facing those inequalities in their waking life or in their dreams. They were being told change is not zero sum and everybody benefits from it and the universe doesn't follow any rules about dominance and submissiveness. God's love is infinite and if you just deposit 10 units of love in it you'll receive 100 back because there's magic multiplier voodoo math. Actual result deposit 10 units receive back 1.

Let's take a social change structure and analyze it. Freon 12. You were told the change was good for the environment and that you had to go from paying 3 bucks for a lb of freon 12 to 9 bucks for a pound of 134a. Meanwhile nasa dumps tons of the stuff every time it launches anything straight into the atmosphere. The protection of the environment had nothing to do with they just wanted to charge more for freon submitted falsified evidence for the change. If things aren't zero sum then why are you paying more for freon and nasa is launching more stuff for less money?

People lie for a reason. To garner support for something that is harmful to another person. Because they don't want to be punished for being honest. Because they simply don't respect you or care enough about you to tell you the truth.

The federal reserve was not instituted after much debate and explanation. It was instituted when congress went off on christmas break and a few guys hung around and passed it. Social security was instituted as a benefit to the person. It's actually just a tax and has been unfunded and take from the minute it's paid. Proposed healthcare reform is the same formula as social security. Forcing you to pay into it promising benefits when it would fall apart in 5 years. It's just a tax. Nothing more nothing less.

Nobody tells you microsoft doesn't make money. They simply issue stock use the money to buy things fight for dominance and pay employees. Nobody tells you that "investors" in microsoft are government ira's, corporate ira's and 401ks and the fed. Who simply buys stock and puts it on the national debt.

Nobody tells you that when you buy a house you counterfeit the money to make the counterparty whole and then pay the banks who are the real government double for the house which actually loses value through detoriation as you own it. Nobody tells you that if you refuse to pay property taxes you're little illusion of home and land ownership will be crumbled by government coming in taking it selling it to someone else for taxes. Because they own your house like a boss, like a boss with guns, their accounts recievable department is armed and psychotic. When they draw a map and property lines they aren't just drawing. They are owning the property they map out.

Nobody tells you that if you simply refuse guidance and mentally rebel strongly that you are unable to have manipulative dreams because you are generating counter force energies that make it extremely difficult and annoying to you're "guides" who are trying to help you fit into their pimp my mansion reality show. Nobody tells you that duress laws are rediculous because duress is omnipresent. It simply takes many forms and tacticts.